Routine cell salvage during elective caesarean section: a pilot randomised trial

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety and availability of transfused donor blood have prompted research into a range of techniques to minimise allogeneic transfusion requirements. Cell salvage (CS) describes the recovery of blood from the surgical field, either during or after surgery, for reinfusion back to the patient.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CS in minimising perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and on other clinical outcomes in adults undergoing elective or non-urgent surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two clinical trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews from 2009 (date of previous search) to 19 January 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs assessing the use of CS compared to no CS in adults (participants aged 18 or over, or using the study's definition of adult) undergoing elective (non-urgent) surgery only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 106 RCTs, incorporating data from 14,528 participants, reported in studies conducted in 24 countries. Results were published between 1978 and 2021. We analysed all data according to a single comparison: CS versus no CS. We separated analyses by type of surgery. The certainty of the evidence varied from very low certainty to high certainty. Reasons for downgrading the certainty included imprecision (small sample sizes below the optimal information size required to detect a difference, and wide confidence intervals), inconsistency (high statistical heterogeneity), and risk of bias (high risk from domains including sequence generation, blinding, and baseline imbalances). Aggregate analysis (all surgeries combined: primary outcome only) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.72; 82 RCTs, 12,520 participants). Cancer: 2 RCTs (79 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for mortality, blood loss, infection, or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Cardiovascular (vascular): 6 RCTs (384 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for most outcomes. No data were reported for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Cardiovascular (no bypass): 6 RCTs (372 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 3 RCTs, 169 participants). Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for volume transfused, blood loss, mortality, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospital length of stay (LOS). There were no analysable data reported for thrombosis, DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), and MACE. Cardiovascular (with bypass): 29 RCTs (2936 participants) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS, and suggests there may be no difference in risk of infection and hospital LOS. Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a reduction in volume transfused because of CS, or if there is any difference for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, wound complication, thrombosis, DVT, PE, MACE, and MI, and probably no difference in risk of stroke. Obstetrics: 1 RCT (1356 participants) High-certainty evidence shows there is no difference between groups for mean volume of allogeneic blood transfused (mean difference (MD) -0.02 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 1 RCT, 1349 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for risk of allogeneic transfusion. There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Orthopaedic (hip only): 17 RCTs (2055 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, or if there is any difference between groups for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), thrombosis, DVT, PE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for MACE and MI. Orthopaedic (knee only): 26 RCTs (2568 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, and whether there is a difference for blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, PJI, DVT, PE, MI, MACE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for mortality and thrombosis. Orthopaedic (spine only): 6 RCTs (404 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; 3 RCTs, 194 participants). Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for volume transfused, blood loss, infection, wound complication, and PE. There were no analysable data reported for mortality, re-operation for bleeding, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MACE, MI, stroke, and hospital LOS. Orthopaedic (mixed): 14 RCTs (4374 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS, or if there is any difference between groups for volume transfused, mortality, blood loss, infection, wound complication, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MI, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for re-operation for bleeding, MACE, and stroke.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In some types of elective surgery, cell salvage may reduce the need for and volume of allogeneic transfusion, alongside evidence of no difference in adverse events, when compared to no cell salvage. Further research is required to establish why other surgeries show no benefit from CS, through further analysis of the current evidence. More large RCTs in under-reported specialities are needed to expand the evidence base for exploring the impact of CS.

Preoperative blood transfusions for sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. SCD can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Surgical interventions are more common in people with SCD, and occur at much younger ages than in the general population. Blood transfusions are frequently used prior to surgery and several regimens are used but there is no consensus over the best method or the necessity of transfusion in specific surgical cases. This is an update of a Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether there is evidence that preoperative blood transfusion in people with SCD undergoing elective or emergency surgery reduces mortality and perioperative or sickle cell-related serious adverse events. To compare the effectiveness of different transfusion regimens (aggressive or conservative) if preoperative transfusions are indicated in people with SCD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 28 January 2020 We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register: 19 September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preoperative blood transfusion regimens to different regimens or no transfusion in people with SCD undergoing elective or emergency surgery. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and the risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with 990 participants were eligible for inclusion in the review. There were no ongoing trials identified. These trials were conducted between 1988 and 2011. The majority of people included had haemoglobin (Hb) SS SCD. The majority of surgical procedures were considered low or intermediate risk for developing sickle cell-related complications. Aggressive versus simple red blood cell transfusions One trial (551 participants) compared an aggressive transfusion regimen (decreasing sickle haemoglobin to less than 30%) to a simple transfusion regimen (increasing haemoglobin to 100 g/L). This trial re-randomised participants and therefore quantitative analysis was only possible on two subsets of data: participants undergoing cholecystectomy (230 participants); and participants undergoing tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy surgeries (107 participants). Data were not combined as we do not know if any participant received both surgeries. Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trial being at high risk of bias primarily due to lack of blinding, indirectness and the outcome estimates being imprecise. Cholecystectomy subgroup results are reported in the abstract. Results for both subgroups were similar. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between people receiving aggressive transfusions and those receiving conservative transfusions. No deaths occurred in either subgroup. There were no differences between the aggressive transfusion group and conservative transfusion group in the number of people developing: • an acute chest syndrome, risk ratio (RR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.84) (one trial, 230 participants, very low-quality evidence); • vaso-occlusive crisis, risk ratio 0.30 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.04) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence); • serious infection, risk ratio 1.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 5.18) (one trial, 230 participants, very low-quality evidence); • any perioperative complications, RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.55) (one trial, 230 participants, very low-quality evidence); • a transfusion-related complication, RR 1.85 (95% CI 0.89 to 3.88) (one trial, 230 participants, very low-quality evidence). Preoperative transfusion versus no preoperative transfusion Two trials (434 participants) compared a preoperative transfusion plus standard care to a group receiving standard care. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trials being at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, and outcome estimates being imprecise. One trial was stopped early because more people in the no transfusion arm developed an acute chest syndrome. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between people receiving preoperative transfusions and those receiving no preoperative transfusions (two trials, 434 participants, no deaths occurred). There was significant heterogeneity between the two trials in the number of people developing an acute chest syndrome, a meta-analysis was therefore not performed. One trial showed a reduced number of people developing acute chest syndrome between people receiving preoperative transfusions and those receiving no preoperative transfusions, risk ratio 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.80) (65 participants), whereas the other trial did not, RR 4.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 99.61) (369 participants). There were no differences between the preoperative transfusion groups and the groups without preoperative transfusion in the number of people developing: • a vaso-occlusive crisis, Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.91 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 6.04) (two trials, 434 participants, very low-quality evidence). • a serious infection, Peto OR 1.29 (95% CI 0.29 to 5.71) (two trials, 434 participants, very low-quality evidence); • any perioperative complications, RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.05) (one trial, 65 participants, low-quality evidence). There was an increase in the number of people developing circulatory overload in those receiving preoperative transfusions compared to those not receiving preoperative transfusions in one of the two trials, and no events were seen in the other trial (no meta-analysis performed).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to determine whether conservative preoperative blood transfusion is as effective as aggressive preoperative blood transfusion in preventing sickle-related or surgery-related complications in people with HbSS disease. There is very low quality evidence that preoperative blood transfusion may prevent development of acute chest syndrome. Due to lack of evidence this review cannot comment on management for people with HbSC or HbSβ⁺ disease or for those with high baseline haemoglobin concentrations.

A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of intraoperative cell salvage during caesarean section in women at risk of haemorrhage: the SALVO (cell SALVage in Obstetrics) trial

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section is associated with blood loss and maternal morbidity. Excessive blood loss requires transfusion of donor (allogeneic) blood, which is a finite resource. Cell salvage returns blood lost during surgery to the mother. It may avoid the need for donor blood transfusion, but reliable evidence of its effects is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section in mothers at risk of haemorrhage reduces the rates of blood transfusion and postpartum maternal morbidity, and is cost-effective, in comparison with standard practice without routine salvage use.

DESIGN

Individually randomised controlled, multicentre trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Treatment was not blinded.

SETTING

A total of 26 UK obstetric units.

PARTICIPANTS

Out of 3054 women recruited between June 2013 and April 2016, we randomly assigned 3028 women at risk of haemorrhage to cell salvage or routine care. Randomisation was stratified using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. Of these, 1672 had emergency and 1356 had elective caesareans. We excluded women for whom cell salvage or donor blood transfusion was contraindicated.

INTERVENTIONS

Cell salvage (intervention) versus routine care without salvage (control). In the intervention group, salvage was set up in 95.6% of the women and, of these, 50.8% had salvaged blood returned. In the control group, 3.9% had salvage deployed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary - donor blood transfusion. Secondary - units of donor blood transfused, time to mobilisation, length of hospitalisation, mean fall in haemoglobin, fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) measured by Kleihauer-Betke test, and maternal fatigue. Analyses were adjusted for stratification factors and other factors that were believed to be prognostic a priori. Cost-effectiveness outcomes - costs of resources and service provision taking the UK NHS perspective.

RESULTS

We analysed 1498 and 1492 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Overall, the transfusion rate was 2.5% in the intervention group and 3.5% in the control group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.01; p = 0.056]. In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 3.0% in the intervention group and 4.6% in the control group among emergency caesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 1.8% in the intervention group and 2.2% in the control group among elective caesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46, suggesting that the difference in effect between subgroups was not statistically significant). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for FMH, which was higher under salvage in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women with RhD-positive babies (25.6% vs. 10.5%, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14; p = 0.013). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The additional cost of routine cell salvage during caesarean was estimated, on average, at £8110 per donor blood transfusion avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

The modest evidence for an effect of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section on rates of donor blood transfusion was associated with increased FMH, which emphasises the need for adherence to guidance on anti-D prophylaxis. We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. Based on the findings of this trial, cell salvage is unlikely to be considered cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

Research into risk of alloimmunisation among women exposed to cell salvage is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66118656.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cell salvage and donor blood transfusion during cesarean section: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (SALVO)

BACKGROUND

Excessive haemorrhage at cesarean section requires donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. Cell salvage may reduce this requirement.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (at 26 obstetric units; participants recruited from 4 June 2013 to 17 April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) versus current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in cesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2 ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive babies (a secondary outcome) between groups. Among 3,028 women randomised (2,990 analysed), 95.6% of 1,498 assigned to intervention had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) versus 3.9% of 1,492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference -1.03, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.06). In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 4.6% in women assigned to control versus 3.0% in the intervention group among emergency cesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 2.2% versus 1.8% among elective cesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The rate of fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with the intervention (10.5% in the control group versus 25.6% in the intervention group, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14, p = 0.013). We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall reduction observed in donor blood transfusion associated with the routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section was not statistically significant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN as trial number 66118656 and can be viewed on http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656.

Preoperative blood transfusions for sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. Sickle cell disease can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Surgical interventions are more common in people with sickle cell disease, and occur at much younger ages than in the general population. Blood transfusions are frequently used prior to surgery and several regimens are used but there is no consensus over the best method or the necessity of transfusion in specific surgical cases. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether there is evidence that preoperative blood transfusion in people with sickle cell disease undergoing elective or emergency surgery reduces mortality and perioperative or sickle cell-related serious adverse events.To compare the effectiveness of different transfusion regimens (aggressive or conservative) if preoperative transfusions are indicated in people with sickle cell disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 23 March 2016.We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register: 18 January 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preoperative blood transfusion regimens to different regimens or no transfusion in people with sickle cell disease undergoing elective or emergency surgery. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and the risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with 990 participants were eligible for inclusion in the review. There were no ongoing trials identified. These trials were conducted between 1988 and 2011. The majority of people included had haemoglobin (Hb) SS SCD. The majority of surgical procedures were considered low or intermediate risk for developing sickle cell-related complications. Aggressive versus simple red blood cell transfusions One trial (551 participants) compared an aggressive transfusion regimen (decreasing sickle haemoglobin to less than 30%) to a simple transfusion regimen (increasing haemoglobin to 100 g/l). This trial re-randomised participants and therefore quantitative analysis was only possible on two subsets of data: participants undergoing cholecystectomy (230 participants); and participants undergoing tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy surgeries (107 participants). Data were not combined as we do not know if any participant received both surgeries. Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trial being at high risk of bias primarily due to lack of blinding, indirectness and the outcome estimates being imprecise. Cholecystectomy subgroup results are reported in the abstract. Results for both subgroups were similar.There was no difference in all-cause mortality between people receiving aggressive transfusions and those receiving conservative transfusions. No deaths occurred in either subgroup.There were no differences between the aggressive transfusion group and conservative transfusion group in the number of people developing:• an acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.84) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• vaso-occlusive crisis, risk ratio 0.30 (95% confidence interval 0.09 to 1.04) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• serious infection, risk ratio 1.75 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 5.18) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• any perioperative complications, risk ratio 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.55) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence);• a transfusion-related complication, risk ratio 1.85 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 3.88) (one trial, 230 participants, very low quality evidence). Preoperative transfusion versus no preoperative transfusion Two trials (434 participants) compared a preoperative transfusion plus standard care to a group receiving standard care. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trials being at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, and outcome estimates being imprecise. One trial was stopped early because more people in the no transfusion arm developed an acute chest syndrome.There was no difference in all-cause mortality between people receiving preoperative transfusions and those receiving no preoperative transfusions (two trials, 434 participants, no deaths occurred).There was significant heterogeneity between the two trials in the number of people developing an acute chest syndrome, a meta-analysis was therefore not performed. One trial showed a reduced number of people developing acute chest syndrome between people receiving preoperative transfusions and those receiving no preoperative transfusions, risk ratio 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.80) (65 participants), whereas the other trial did not, risk ratio 4.81 (95% confidence interval 0.23 to 99.61) (369 participants).There were no differences between the preoperative transfusion groups and the groups without preoperative transfusion in the number of people developing:• a vaso-occlusive crisis, Peto odds ratio 1.91 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 6.04) (two trials, 434 participants, very low quality evidence).• a serious infection, Peto odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 5.71) (two trials, 434 participants, very low quality evidence);• any perioperative complications, risk ratio 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 2.05) (one trial, 65 participants, low quality evidence).There was an increase in the number of people developing circulatory overload in those receiving preoperative transfusions compared to those not receiving preoperative transfusions in one of the two trials, and no events were seen in the other trial (no meta-analysis performed).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to determine whether conservative preoperative blood transfusion is as effective as aggressive preoperative blood transfusion in preventing sickle-related or surgery-related complications in people with HbSS disease. There is very low quality evidence that preoperative blood transfusion may prevent development of acute chest syndrome.Due to lack of evidence this review cannot comment on management for people with HbSC or HbSβ(+) disease or for those with high baseline haemoglobin concentrations.